Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Mitsubishi Outlander vs. Subaru Forester
This discussion has been closed.
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
You should be happy with $30 boombox from Wallmart: "you just have to set-it-up properly".
It has 141.1 total cubic feet of interior space unless you add the moonroof. We've already discussed that.
Jeep makes trucks that IMHO fall in different classes.
Here are Consumer Reports' specific scores for small SUVs:
Excellent overall -
Forester XT: 87
RAV4 V6: 83
Forester 2.5X: 82
Very Good overall -
RAV4 base: 77 (re-tested with new engine and got 82, tie w/Forester 2.5X)
Outlander LS: 73
Outlander XLS V6: 70
Let's see if they will test the Outlander GT model soon.
You get a top visibility ranking by not needing a lot of expensive and complicated technology to compensate for a lack of outward visibility. It's amazing what lots of glass and small roof pillars do for the driver's field of vision :P
You did not even make an effort do to your homework. As usual: the “Borg Warner” method
And your method would be? Confuse and obfuscate? We all get that you're in love with the Outlander but how about a smidgen of objectivity and acknowledgement of the Forester's many excellent qualities?
Neither car is perfect but both vehicles have their strengths and weaknesses. It's up to prospective buyers to determine what their priorities are. This topic is intended to help those buyers by pointing out each vehicle's respective strengths, not to attack the other's perceived short-comings.
-Frank
I'd say his method is pretty simple: Denial.
Like you've said yourself, residual value is based on MSRP, but since people don't buys cars at MSRP, this "residual value" is some artificial number which does not mean much for people who buy cars.
The Kelly Blue Book on the other hand deals with real world prices people pay for cars.
Looking at the top of the line XT and XLS without navigation: according to the KBB/ItelliChoice, after 5 years Outlander depreciates only $1500 more, but Forester’s higher cost of repairs, maintenance and insurance makes up for that, so both cars cost of ownership is about the same $44.5K. But after 5 years Forester XT will cost you more: it’s less car for more money.
After Subaru adds little more equipment to the top of the line XT, they can't maintain the same reliability as basic stripped down Forester. Who needs this "Residual Value Award"?
>> Also, your said your lease was 30 months.
No, I 've never said that, so your "residuals" are wrong. The only car I've ever leased is my current Benz.
If that's true, something must have changed.
10 Things Your Auto Dealer Won't Tell You (smartmoney.com)
KBB is just a forecast, and often very high, and very inaccurate. Go to the real world trade-in values thread and ask anyone there. People are shocked at how much less they get for their trades vs. KBB values.
Edit to add a link to that thread:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.ee9c851/38951#MSG38951
ALG is real money, that's what determines your lease cost, not KBB.
Huh? The Forester's depreciation is $1500 less and even the Forester's estimated 5-year ownership cost is marginally less so how exactly do you come to the conclusion that the Forester will cost you more? That's fuzzy math at its best!
-Frank
Actually the increased estimated maintenance cost was captured in your previous post but the Forester XT still costs less to own than the Outlander :P
Oh and thanks for pointing out that the non-turbo Forester has one of the best reliability ratings in the small SUV segment :shades:
-Frank
First you diss car_man from Edmunds, now RL Polk?
OK, let's use you as a source instead. You traded your Outlander for a Benz, so 0% loyalty.
Actions speak louder than words.
I bet you didn't lease an Outlander when you saw what others were quoted for lease payments - $450-550 for the last couple of quotes.
No wonder you got a Benz, it probably didn't cost much more than that.
Here's what happened:
So in this post last month you conveniently forgot to mention that the turbo version of Forester has below average reliability rating and holds 19th spot?
Non-turbo is on the 4th place and turbo on 19th. That makes average 11-12 place, which is still below Outlander's average 10th place. I am disappointed, I thought these stripped down Subarus at least more reliable!
For me it's freedom to drive any car I want including Benz. For you it's "loyalty" being enslaved by Subaru Bux, so you are forced to buy the same 3-speed subaru with "symmetrical awd" for years ahead. It's your loyalty to Subaru marketing, best car marketing organization in N. America.
>> I bet you didn't lease an Outlander when you saw what others were quoted for lease payments - $450-550 for the last couple of quotes.
You may loose your bet, since you use the "Borg Warner" method.
>> Huh? The Forester's depreciation is $1500 less and even the Forester's estimated 5-year ownership cost is marginally less so how exactly do you come to the conclusion that the Forester will cost you more? That's fuzzy math at its best!
"depreciation is $1500 less", but insurance, maintenance and repairs $1400 more. But remember that Outlander has 10 year powetrain warranty. Forester: only 3 years. Powertrain repairs are expensive that's why Forester will cost you more money.
Oh you welcome, Frank. It's old news though: Ateixeira has been bragging about it for weeks on this board. He conveniently forgot to mention though that the XT is rated even below average. Always glad to "point out" so you finally got it.
The "non-turbo Forester" however is one of the most stripped down cars in class, so there is not much could malfunction except for powertrain. Basically, the reliability overachiever consists of 4-wheels, "boxer" engine, tranny and downgraded "symmetrical awd" which after redesign lost LS differential.
Some GLK owners some day will have to buy one, just to know. Luckily, with the good depreciation they will be able to afford a "98 Forester, the first year model, Car and Driver comparison winner.
Outlander: the TENTH most reliable compact SUV!
That will triple sales.
stripped down Subarus at least more reliable!
Another myth. The 2.5X Limited is not stripped down at all, it has all the same equipment as the XT Limited. This shows how little you know about the Forester.
The only difference is the turbo powertrain, so I guess we have to ask who supplies that turbo that lowers the reliability score?
Who supplies the turbo again?
Will MMNA survive that long? Until 2020?
I'm not sure they'll make it to 2012, much less 2020.
The parent company will make it, but with sales down 75% you have to wonder how long they will put MMNA on life support.
Subaru's powertrain warranty is not 3 years, the auto is not a 3 speed, the Subaru Bucks don't have to be used to buy a car, and the 2.5X Limited is not decontented.
Ouch!
And of course you're right, there's no such thing as a stripped down Subaru. Even base models come well equipped. Unless of course your list of must haves includes a leather clad dash and a stereo powerful enough to make a rap star jealous... in which case, you'll be forced to get an Outlander :shades:
I like how he tries to arbitrarily lower the Forester's reliability ranking by averaging the turbo and non-turbo scores. Never mind that turbos only account for 10% of Forester sales. And speaking of the F-XT's reliability, my 2004 is now 6 years old with 83k miles and guess how much I've spent on repairs (powertrain or otherwise)? Yep, ZERO dollars
Have you ever paused to consider which manufacturers offer 10-year warranties and why? It seems to me it's only the ones who have a history of shoddy workmanship that they're trying to overcome
-Frank
I'm way ahead of you.
Already shot 2 e-mails to SoA asking about the production volume, turbo vs. non-turbo.
We both know the sales-weighted average will be well ahead of 10th place.
Not to mention the Benz ML is not exactly known for legendary reliability, so all models in this thread exceed his own standards by a wide margin.
Some models had a viscous LSD to manage traction on the rear axle (better than on the front, but still not on both), but it was replaced with traction/stability control that managed traction on both axles on all models. That was an upgrade, not a downgrade.
Let's use Mitsubishi as a source for this one, from their 2006 press release when they intro'd the 2007 Outlander you ended up buying:
The traction control portion of ASTC provides a "virtual" limited-slip differential effect by helping to prevent wheel spin during start up and acceleration in slippery conditions. Even if the driver has not selected 4WD Auto or 4WD Lock modes on a 4WD Outlander model, front wheel spin can be controlled under a variety of conditions. Since a mechanical limited-slip differential is not required, weight is reduced.
You bought in to that theory because that is where you spent your money.
If you thought a mechanical LSD was better, why didn't you buy a 2007 Forester? They had them back then.
You chose traction control instead. As did Subaru.
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.ca/Outlander/Specifications.aspx
Strange that both the EPA and Mitsu Canada say Premium. Wonder if MMNA will do that also? It's the same 230hp engine. It is not specified on their web site.
What does it say behind the fuel door of the 2010s?
You can use regular or premium. As with a lot of modern V6s, the manual states you get more power from premium but it is not required.
I'm burning regular. Getting about 22.5MPG according to the OBC. That's in suburban driving as it has yet to see an interstate. I have about 330 miles on it to date. I'm officially past the 300 mile break-in period for the engine.
Doesn't Mitsubishi specify a 1,000 mile break-in period? I thought that was the standard for all manufacturers?
-Frank
-Frank
And yeah, seems like 300 to 500 miles is a more typical break-in period these days. And that's probably just to bed in the brakes.
North american market is smallest for Mitsu, but it's to big to pass on it. They will not exit this market as long as company is doing well worldwide. Mitsu still sells twice more cars vs. Subaru worldwide. Subaru sold this fiscal year 555k vs. 2008: 616k . Subaru forecasts further decline next year. This is a huge 61k decline in addition to the staggering ¾ billion dollar loss. As a result Subaru not only delays upgrades but even downgrades to a more basic AWD system and Chinese turbochargers.
I agree though that Mitsu marketing sucks and everyone at the MMNA marketing division should be fired.
.
>> Outlander: the TENTH most reliable compact SUV!
So are you saying Forester’s 19th place is better? "That will triple sales!" No wonder bragging all month about Forester CR reliability rating you were so shy to mention it.
.
>>>stripped down Subarus at least more reliable!
>>Another myth. The 2.5X Limited is not stripped down at all, it has all the same equipment as the XT Limited. This shows how little you know about the Forester.
Except not all Foresters are equipped with the same options as “Limited”, “shows how little you know about the Forester.” But even “Limited” is poorly equipped.
.
>> The only difference is the turbo powertrain, so I guess we have to ask who supplies that turbo that lowers the reliability score? Who supplies the turbo again?
Mitsubishi-supplied turbochargers are fine. Lancer turbo has very good reliability rating, way better then average.
“This shows how little you know about the Forester.” The reported problem with turbo Forester XT is rod big end bearings, which is a major mechanical part of actual engine and not part of Mitsubishi turbocharger.
Turbochargers put con rod under tremendous stress from the reciprocating load represented by the piston, while load is increased to the 3rd power with increased speed. Failure of a connecting rod, usually called "throwing a rod" is one of the most common causes of catastrophic and expensive engine failure in cars. When building a high performance engine, great attention should be paid to the con rods, since the rod could to fail under stress.
Subaru did not provide an engine appropriate to function with high performance turbocharger. They simply attached turbocharger to a stock "boxer" engine. Irresponsible and cheap approach. American consumer will buy anyway the "symmetrical AWD" and "boxer" engine.
Why would I? The 2007 Forester is an ugly dated station wagon, no thank you . The 2007 Outlander does have LSD. The 2007 Outlander is more advanced, than 2011 Forester which still will be equipped with 1988 4EAT transmission.
.
>>>> downgraded "symmetrical awd" which after redesign lost LS differential
>> it was replaced with traction/stability control that managed traction on both axles on all models. That was an upgrade, not a downgrade. Let's use Mitsubishi as a source for this one, from their 2006 press release: The traction control portion of ASTC provides a "virtual" limited-slip differential effect by helping to prevent wheel spin during start up and acceleration in slippery conditions.
That’s right: the stability/traction control provides just a "virtual" limited-slip differential effect. In one article it’s called the poor man's LSD. If both sides lose traction at the same time and spin at the same speed then it has no idea anything is wrong. A more advanced system measures the difference between the speeds of all 4 wheels during acceleration and assumes that anything spinning faster than the slowest rotating wheel is slipping . A cheap system will apply the brakes. An expensive system will reduce the throttle until the problem goes away.
Another problem with stability control is that it's pretty harsh. The pulsing of the ABS isn't progressive. If the ABS is on, it applies full braking power followed by zero braking power.. full, zero, full, zero.. The torque from the engine that's being transferred repeatedly all the way across the drivetrain from wheel to wheel a dozen times a second, puts stress on everything. Brakes, rotors, axles, U joints, output shafts, and the differential itself.
Also stability control is really designed for emergency low traction situations and not drag racing or rallying or other long duration and many ESC today operate only at lower speeds.
The 2007 Outlander is equipped with LSD. It has ASTC in addition to LSD, not as substitution. But what was in 2006 is now irrelevant. We are almost in 2010 and while Forester AWD is downgraded, Outlander AWD is upgraded to the state of the art active differential with torque vectoring and the active center differential.
I did not research exotic/racing cars, otherwise it appears there is only 3 cars equipped with combination of active torque vectoring differential + active center differential: Outlander GT, EVO and top of the line Range Rover.
At least you was sure about Borg Warner.
.
>> Subaru's powertrain warranty is not 3 years
Even if its 5, after 5 years the Forester cost of ownership will be higher vs. Outlander which has 10 year warranty.
.
>> the Subaru Bucks don't have to be used to buy a car
But you did. You saved 1500 Subaru Bucks and you've had no choice but purchase a Subaru. Now you have to mentally justify your purchase and tune your mind for the next Subaru purchase. They got you, you are enslaved, and you can't get out of that circle.
Since you won't let it go - CR didn't list the turbo Forester when I mentioned it, that information was not available at the time.
I'm still pleased because my Forester is more reliable than any Mitsubishi car or truck, at any price, no exceptions.
not all Foresters are equipped with the same options as “Limited”
Same for the turbo, though.
By the way, the con rod bearings showed wear and they replaced them, they didn't wait for catastrophic failure. Reliability will improve with time since the issue was resolved.
The 2007 Outlander does have LSD
Mitsubishi wrote:
"virtual" limited-slip differential effect
It has the same EFFECT, but virtual = not real.
How is that different than Subaru's?
4EAT transmission
At least you stopped lying about it being a 3 speed (more than once).
Same way you were sure the Outlander had a 6" taller cargo area? It was more like 1-2" when we measured.
Any why didn't you mention the pairing problem with iPhones, since that's what you have?
And why did you say your arm rest was leather, when it was very obviously vinyl?
You omit the fact that your GPS maps were 4 years old. Navteq just came out with the q3 update to v2010 so even the brand new 2010 GT has 2 3/4 year old maps.
Same with the 11.5" long moonroof, the Forester's panoramic moonroof is more than twice as big (I measured, so if you want the areas I'm happy to provide those).
3 speed automatic, 3 year powertrain warranty, 30 GB music server,... are you ever honest?
Sorry about the Borg Warner thing, happy? Fact is you were bragging about Hyundai and Porsche using it so I made a bad assumption based on your track record. MY BAD. I should have known better. Sorry.
At least I'm willing to admit when I'm wrong.
Forester cost of ownership will be higher
Source please? That's speculation.
I have $800 in Subaru Bucks, so in the unlikely event that something does go wrong those can pay for repairs with those. Or service, or tires, $800 worth for free.
enslaved
For what it's worth, that word may be seem as offensive to a lot of people.
I kept my last Forester for NINE years. You kept your Outlander for 2.5 years, and abandoned the brand entirely. Actions speak louder than words!
PSA doesn’t “take over”, they just buy a stake. And PSA more than Mitsu interested in getting into NA market, just as FIAT interested. Mitsu’s N. American market sales are tiny vs. the Mitsu the rest of the world sales so they can afford giving cars away for free in N.A. just to maintain presence. Subaru sells only half of million cars worldwide (twice less then Mitsu) so Subaru cannot afford any more losses, and they can only hope that “Symmetric AWD” party will continue. I wish them the best, but how long could they fool consumer selling old technology?
>> Since you won't let it go - CR didn't list the turbo Forester when I mentioned it, that information was not available at the time.
But it is available now, I would hope you could share it with us at list now: you are the CR subscriber. I just stopped by the book store and took a pict on my iPhone.
>> I'm still pleased because my Forester is more reliable than any Mitsubishi car or truck, at any price, no exceptions.
Based on what data? We only have an average rating for Outlanders of all trims/engines. After all Mitsu is overall more reliable brand vs. Subaru: link
As you can see that Mitsubishi brand is more reliable then Lexus, Hyundai, Subaru, Mazda, and Nissan. Only Honda and Toyota owned brands are ahead:
Consumer Reports 2009 most and least reliable car ranking.
>> By the way, the con rod bearings showed wear and they replaced them, they didn't wait for catastrophic failure. Reliability will improve with time since the issue was resolved.
Yea, we hope it “will improve with time”. "By the way", you should have been honest about it in the first place instead of blaming Mitsu turbochargers.
It has the same EFFECT, but virtual = not real.
How is that different than Subaru's?
They did not say "the same". Just an effect. Read my post again. OK, I can copy/paste it for you convenience:
the stability/traction control provides just a "virtual" limited-slip differential effect. In one article it’s called the poor man's LSD.
If both sides lose traction at the same time and spin at the same speed then it has no idea anything is wrong. A more advanced system measures the difference between the speeds of all 4 wheels during acceleration and assumes that anything spinning faster than the slowest rotating wheel is slipping . A cheap system will apply the brakes. An expensive system will reduce the throttle until the problem goes away.
Another problem with stability control is that it's pretty harsh. The pulsing of the ABS isn't progressive. If the ABS is on, it applies full braking power followed by zero braking power.. full, zero, full, zero.. The torque from the engine that's being transferred repeatedly all the way across the drivetrain from wheel to wheel a dozen times a second, puts stress on everything. Brakes, rotors, axles, U joints, output shafts, and the differential itself.
Also stability control is really designed for emergency low traction situations and not drag racing or rallying or other long duration and many ESC today operate only at lower speeds.
Well, now I accept your apology and I will avoid bringing this issue up again.
Not all. Check your CR magazine. My M-Class Benz actually rated above average: better then Forester XT, which is below average. The Benz GLK has best CR reliability rating in its class: better then any Forester in its class.
I'll take an EVO in black, please. :shades:
it is available now, I would hope you could share it with us at list now
I still don't have the issue you're talking about. The latest issue I have is January 2010. The Feb issue won't arrive for a week or more. You must be looking on-line or somewhere else?
The link you refer to talks about predicted reliability. Last month's Consumer Reports put my Forester in the top 48 of all models (4th in class, as per your image) in actual measured reliability, and I was happy about that, and still am.
I've got more corrections, since we're in the mood for admitting our mistakes.
Frank: sorry, bear with me, promise these will be about the Outlander and on-topic.
Link to chelentano's original post:
http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f185114/805#MSG805
Quote from it:
•Mitsubishi, 2006, introduced S-AVC with all 4 wheel torque vectoring on 07 EVO X and now on Outlander GT.
We now know that's not true. The Outlander GT does not have all 4 wheel torque vectoring. AFD = active front differential, which means it has front or 2 wheel torque vectoring, not all/4. It's not the same as the EVO X.
Honest mistake, perhaps. I'll cut you some slack, we were both wrong.
In post 814 you talk about Active Yaw Control having advantages including "provide the maximum cornering potential", and while you could say that about the slalom potential, cornering potential is more than a stretch when an Aveo does better in the same test. More on topic, so did the Forester.
AYC helps, sure, but not in the way you described.
If you were talking about the EVO, OK, no problem, but please specify from now on which model's AYC you are referring to, because they differ.
Then you wrote this:
Understeer when cornering is reduced as a Yaw moment can be set-up by torque transfer at the rear wheels.
Again, not on the Outlander. You did not specify which model you were talking about, but a few posts above that you grouped the Outlander GT with the EVO, as if they had identical drive systems.
Perhaps you believed that at the time, but we now know they're not the same.
I stand corrected.
FWIW, the Forester XT still falls in the "Average" range.
The Forester should have gotten the 5EAT from the Outback, or at least the 6 speed manual the euro diesel Forester gets. The XT could have had the higher output turbo engine from the WRX. Canada gets HIDs and USA does not. My '98 Forester had a dash-top storage bin and that's gone.
Ironically the Outlander had it last year (perfect place for a radar detector or cell phone) and that also disappeared, at least from the GT model.
But MMNA is being punished for their poor performance, too. No twin clutch transmission, even though they said it was coming a couple of years ago. The GT concept had sweet looking Brembo brakes, an important omission since it's not a light vehicle. No roof rails on the GT, too.
Subaru owners write letters to SoA complaining about stuff like that, and Mitsubishi owners should, too.
Autoblog First Drive: 2010 Mitsubishi Outlander GT
Let's see if he is willing to admit his mistakes right away, as he said he would.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/11/20/first-drive-2010-mitsubishi-outlander-gt-is-a- -cuv-we-can-live-w/
Pretty good review overall, but they agree with a few of the things I've mentioned:
the glove box door is still a flimsy piece of low grade plastic
the Outlander GT could use more brakes
borrowed-from-the-Ralliart dual-clutch transmission (TC-SST)even in the supposedly hardcore "Lock" setting we managed to get the Outlander GT stuck in a foot of sand
Until we had to slam on the brakes, which, again, could use some work.
I think it would have made more sense to give it the Brembos instead of the cosmetic upgrades, but to be honest American buyers are fickle so I can understand why tried to please dash-strokers instead of enthusiasts.
http://www.autoblog.com/2009/12/20/behold-the-power-of-subaru-wrx-sti-tows-semi-- - out-of-snow/#continued
You just gotta laugh, no matter what you drive.
Funny thing is I don't think the STI is even rated for towing.
Actually Mitsu site states that Outlander does have Active Yaw Control, which is essential system for effective torque vectoring.